Consensus Reached

[Lauda]

They are delivering a HF proposal by July, and this does not mean that the HF will get implemented (even though the average block size will likely be near the effective maximum by then). It would not be difficult to effectively torpedo a maximum block size increase by putting something controversial in the HF.

"by July" could mean May. By July the average block size won't be near the maximum because Segwit should be deployed by then and should already give some headroom. They could, however you're underestimating the miners. If such a thing does occur, then they'd lose both trust and reputation as I've already stated. Everyone became so paranoid and whatnot, we've completely moved away from technical discussions and debates about improvements to "but they could be evil" (regardless if it is Core, Gavin, etc.). The possibility of this is always there, and we should not blindly follow anyone but we have to focus on the important things.

But if they wanted to, they could put controversial features in a HF, right?

Yes.

I'm not entirely sure consensus has been reached.

It has.

[AgentofCoin]

...

This is the loophole. If core blockstream proposes a HF that includes controversial changes along with an increase in the maximum block size then such HF will not get adopted.

Not controversial features, fixes I'd say. Fixes that might be needed (e.g. Time-warp attack).

But if they wanted to, they could put controversial features in a HF, right?

What you are arguing could be a possibility, but hopefully they have worked out those terms as well.

In your opinion, what could be added to the July 2016 HF proposal that would be a deal breaker or be seen as bad faith?

[Alley]

Looks like the market is taking this as great news!

[nakedbitcoins]

Looks like the market is taking this as great news!

It sure seems to like it doesn't it 

[iCEBREAKER]

Classic should be OK with the agreement

It should stick around as a competing impl.

No. Diseases should be completely exterminated.

No

this agreement is made possible by the credible threat classic represented

we NEED a competing impl

Litecoin is a competing implementation of the Nakamoto Consensus schema described in Satoshi's whitepaper, with its own distinct socioeconomic majority.

Primecoin is another alternative, competing PoW-based distributed consensus.

Classic is a declaration of war, not a competing solution.  Classic's raison d'etre is to "slap" Blockstream and "fire" Core, not increase tps from 3 to 6 tps.

Your 'but muh credurrble threat' talking point was already debunked and demolished by no less than Bram Cohen.  https://medium.com/@bramcohen/double-billing-is-not-healthy-competition-b698c345b11e

Remember him?  He made Bittorrent, which did for antifragile file distribution what Bitcoin does for value, thereby disrupting Napster's centralized approach.

[iCEBREAKER]

I am also confused as to why it would take so long to code a HF whose only change is to increase the maximum block size. I would think this would only involve changing a few lines of code, and see little reason why this code could not be released tomorrow

You must have missed the last 18 months.  Vacation?  Coma?

Here, this will help you catch up.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347252.0

[sadasa]

Looks like the market is taking this as great news!

The price is $440 now. So it is good news for the bitcoin industry and community. I hope the SegWit will be successful.

[adamstgBit]

Classic should be OK with the agreement

It should stick around as a competing impl.

No. Diseases should be completely exterminated.

No

this agreement is made possible by the credible threat classic represented

we NEED a competing impl

Litecoin is a competing implementation of the Nakamoto Consensus schema described in Satoshi's whitepaper, with its own distinct socioeconomic majority.

Primecoin is another alternative, competing PoW-based distributed consensus.

Classic is a declaration of war, not a competing solution.  Classic's raison d'etre is to "slap" Blockstream and "fire" Core, not increase tps from 3 to 6 tps.

Your 'but muh credurrble threat' talking point was already debunked and demolished by no less than Bram Cohen.  https://medium.com/@bramcohen/double-billing-is-not-healthy-competition-b698c345b11e

Remember him?  He made Bittorrent, which did for antifragile file distribution what Bitcoin does for value, thereby disrupting Napster's centralized approach.

i think you misunderstand?
i'm not saying having Impl.s  create HF  is good
i'm saying when there's a hard choice to be made ( ex. how to scale bitcoin )
miners can threaten to "promote" the Classic Impl. over Core Impl. as the reference impl. because Classic is willing to do what they want.

is this not EXACTLY what happened?

had it not been for the empty threat made by the chinese miners, to switch to classic, would core have conceded to anything at all??? idk...
if you think the answer is "no", then why do you think they use the threat in the first place?

[iCEBREAKER]

Funny on the picture in OP is that there are only guys. No women at all. I guess some female ideas would be a good step forward.

Ideas don't have gender, but if you must check the social justice box here you go:

http://bravetheworld.com/2016/02/09/faith-bitcoin-restored/

Thanks for reminding me to add that to the Grand Schism Compendium.   

[Laosai]

I'm not entirely sure consensus has been reached.

Why are you saying this? They all say it has!

[bakingbad]

I'm not entirely sure consensus has been reached.

well it is kinda consensus but all the stuff will happen not in the near future what means it might not happen at all, but at least things are moving now

[Raimonn]

I think that this are very good news, consensus is very important we lost so much time discussing about classic, XT, and other variants. Now the bitcoin industry and the bitcoin developers reach an agreement, and give bitcoin a good future.

[Laosai]

I think that this are very good news, consensus is very important we lost so much time discussing about classic, XT, and other variants. Now the bitcoin industry and the bitcoin developers reach an agreement, and give bitcoin a good future.

Well personnaly I lost most of my time trying to figure out wtf was happening xD

[capcher]

Looks promising!  Draft leaked... 

[HKmtg] Now it's 0:30 Beijing time... The final statement is coming very soon.  33m

Statement Draft:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46qtkz/bitcoin_roundtable_consensus_statement_draft_text/

Hmm whoever posted that seems to have deleted it.


Ok, found this on Bitcoin Roundtable's Medium: "Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus"

Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.

• SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
• The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
• If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.

This is also signed by Kevin Pan from Antpool. Does this mean all of the major mining pools are in favor of this?

Han Solo also signed this.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

concensus reached

The only thing that has concensus is that your avatar looks like Eric Cartman.

Delete this, sensorshit.

[ebliever]

Funny on the picture in OP is that there are only guys. No women at all. I guess some female ideas would be a good step forward.

What is a "female idea"? Why not ask for "ideas" based on race, hair color, age bracket and sexual orientation while you're at it? Ideas stand on their own merits, not the identity of the person proposing them.

[bitbitch]

Looks like the market is taking this as great news!

The price is $440 now. So it is good news for the bitcoin industry and community. I hope the SegWit will be successful.

which is where it was pre Mike Hearn's communique. as this is a China gig i'll say there's been no Great Leap Forward here. the miners make the right signals to protect their halving revenue expectations.

a proposal is timed for July? how convenient. the day after halving? probably.

[disclaimer201]

It has been about time a solution was found and never understood why some people got overly emotional supporting one side or the other. All of this hate and the way we as a community discussed solutions for a technical issue was a major turn-off. As an investor I would wait for another few years before I'd put any serious money into Bitcoin, just to see if Bitcoin will not be torn apart by its users before 2018.

[Denker]

Wow Brian Armstrong is such a jerk!

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.4usja7jrj

To me it's looking like he's telling everyone to not agree with consensus simply because he feels it doesn't meet his requirements.
Coinbase is a bank!Let's face it!
And imo Core's roadmap is threatening his business model. That guy is against Lightning Network and especially against confidential transactions as this could hinder Coinbase's ability to track bitcoin uses and therefore to comply to AML regulations.

[Lauda]

Wow Brian Armstrong is such a jerk!

To me it's looking like he's telling everyone to not agree with consensus simply because he feels it doesn't meet his requirements.
Coinbase is a bank!Let's face it!
And imo Core's roadmap is threatening his business model. That guy is against Lightning Network and especially against confidential transactions as this could hinder Coinbase's ability to track bitcoin uses and therefore to comply to AML regulations.

Coinbase has never been on the same side of Bitcoin nor decentralization as the majority. I've always suspected this, but the strong push from Armstrong towards another implementation just suggests that he is unable to push his own agenda. Even his CTO signed various statements supporting Core roadmaps and whatnot. He does not have adequate knowledge to be able to state that, Segwit as the first solution, would be a mistake (what would he base his opinion on, bias?). He's still trying to push forward the joke that does not even have a proper team of developers. However, this post might cause something similar to this:

Does this mean all of the major mining pools are in favor of this?

Yes, over 80% of the hashrate.

What is a "female idea"? Why not ask for "ideas" based on race, hair color, age bracket and sexual orientation while you're at it? Ideas stand on their own merits, not the identity of the person proposing them.

Nonsense. It has been proven that the performance of work groups is increased when there is diversity (the more women -> better). That's what the person meant (I hope).